By Lindsay Toler
By Chad Garrison
By Brett Koshkin
By RFT Staff
By Lindsay Toler
By Riverfront Times
By Danny Wicentowski
By Pete Kotz
FEATURE, DECEMBER 2, 2010
tochead">NO DIVORCE FOR YOU
Buyer, beware! I approve of this idea of no gay divorce ["The Gay Divorcees," Melissa Meinzer]. They wanted to get married so badly, so why not make the process of getting divorced harder than it is to get married? And so it is. The legislators were smart to write the laws for gay marriage like that. No refunds!
As a moderate liberal, my personal belief was and still is, "Fine. Do it. I'm not going to get gay married. It's frankly not my problem. So let them do it. Just don't expect gay divorce to be legalized. Let them stir in their own juices! After all, this is what they wanted." And lo and behold, great minds think alike.
In a perfect world, straight divorce would be illegal as well, but in a perfect world abusive husbands would not beat their wives in fits of rage or after getting wasted. Likewise, the only reason that seems valid for a gay divorce is either in the case of domestic violence or if the marriage was done without the coherent consent of either party (i.e., you were married when you were asleep, knocked out or intentionally drugged). For all other reasons, like just not getting along or fighting over which Lady Gaga CD to play in the car, they can go pound sand.
To the gay people of the community, there is a Latin saying that applies not just in commerce, but in relationships: "Caveat emptor!" Buyer beware! If your relationship is a lemon, and you're not happy with making the lemonade out of that lemon, then you can't trade your lemon in for an orange.
So don't complain about not being able to get a gay divorce after all the effort gay-rights leaders made to legalize gay marriage. Misery is a part of being married. As part of marriage, you surrender some of the free-spiritedness that you had when you were single to be part of that marriage.
Congratulations, married gay couples! This is exactly what you wanted! Now deal with it!
Mr. Hacks, via the Internet
Tomorrow belongs to us: Uh, gay people fought for marriage equity, which would pretty obviously include the right to divorce. Or are you against straight divorce too, Mr. Progressive? Perhaps you should devote more of your scant intellectual faculties to grasping the issue rather than congratulating yourself on your imagined tolerance.
You can call yourself a moderate liberal, and hell, you may even be one, comparatively, in a backwater redneck wasteland like Missouri, but your lame-ass Lady Gaga joke betrays the outlook of a disgusting reactionary bigot.
It's no comfort to the real people like W. whose real lives are fucked because of smug, clueless, Bible-pounding assholes, but those people are slowly dying off, and the future belongs to brave, open-minded people like Rabbi Talve. Good luck to all these people.
Omar Little, via the Internet
What would MLK do? Pure and simple, gay rights, gay marriage and, therefore, gay divorce are civil-rights issues. I am African American (in case you couldn't tell from the photograph in the story), and I grew up in a home where my mother frequently played recordings of Martin Luther King speeches. Those words are still with me now — still in me. "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
I was very happy when Melissa Meinzer called me and wanted to talk about mediation, gay marriage and gay divorce. I was happy when I got a chance to meet her for coffee and I am happier still that she turned out such an incredibly detailed and heartfelt article. I really enjoyed reading it.
I just want to expound on a couple of points. I've been trained in the law, and I'm not the type to make lawyer jokes. So when I said to her that attorneys deal with divorce in a very legalistic way and try to get the most money and don't always respect the relationship, I was overstating the case a little bit. Many attorneys, perhaps most attorneys, do care about their clients and realize that even a divorcing couple (especially a divorcing couple with children) are still, in some ways, maintaining a relationship. I do believe, however, that the very nature of the adversarial process leads well-meaning people to look at the dollar signs — to the exclusion of almost everything else. Mediation, done right, offers the parties the opportunity to acknowledge and honor their past relationship while making decisions about the future.
Michael Tramble, via the Internet
What about Larry King? I agree that same-sex couples should be able to have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. The article's examination of how same-sex couples are identified by the law as deviants demonstrates the hold placed on our society by government and the media to conform to stereotypical ideals of what constitutes a marriage or divorce.
The structure of our society recognizes that a plurality of our population is heterosexual, monogamous couples. Whilst this is the case, how is it that we've determined that marriage and divorce can only be between these individuals? Shouldn't we be considering that if we alienate the homosexual citizens of our country, if others don't fit into this category as well, they should not be given the opportunities either? As an example, an individual that has been married and divorced several times would not be seen as conforming to these ideals. Should we be taking away their rights to divorce for not taking it seriously?